get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output behavior—echoing context with fields like connected, version, project, timeline, and fps. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, but the nature of a status report implies safe, non-mutating behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value: what it reports, when to call it, and what the result contains. No redundancy or wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple status tool with no parameters and no annotations. The description explains the purpose, usage timing, and output content. An output schema exists, but the description already covers the returned fields, so it is complete for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-level details, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description sufficiently explains what the tool reports.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource: connection state, Resolve version, project, and timeline. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and open_project.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Call this first in a session, and again whenever you are unsure what Resolve has open.' This provides clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, which is less critical for a status check.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.